Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
July 15, 2014 by jemack
Separation of Church and State: Marriage Belongs To The Church Not The State
Henry VIII ascended to the throne of jolly old England at the age of eighteen in 1509. By the late 1520’s his wife, Catherine of Argon, was in her forties and had failed to produce a male heir. Desperate to solidify his family’s future grip on power, Henry moved to divorce Catherine and marry his mistress Anne Boleyn. The Pope refused to allow the divorce on the grounds that Henry had been given special permission to marry her in the first place. Catherine was his brother’s widow. In May of 1533 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer declared Henry and Catherine’s marriage invalid. Almost immediately Anne Boleyn was crowned queen. The Pope moved for excommunication. Henry, by an act of parliament was made head of the Church in England, stripping the Pope of religious power in the realm.
Why is this important for our context? It demonstrates some things about the power of the State in regards to marriage that has been lost on us in the modern era. First, when Henry wanted to get divorced, he didn’t go to a judge, he went to the Church. Why? Because Henry understood that marriage was an act of devotion, it was not the creation of the State. He understood, rightly, that marriage is an inherently religious act. So, in the matter of marriage, as in other things regarding worship, Henry was a man under authority, not in authority. Second, we see that in order to justify his actions for posterity, he had to ultimately assume complete power over the church. Henry understood that the State had no power over the institution of marriage. He had to make a theological case for the king to be head of the church. The Anglican Church was born in this controversy.
Where did marriage come from? People rarely ask this question. It is however, a very important question to ask and answer. Marriage was not created by government bureaucrats in a boardroom. It is now, and has always been, a religious act of devotion. It is a function of a religious institution. Where we ever got the idea that civil government has the power to grant marriage licenses and conduct marriage ceremonies is beyond me. The State cannot join two people together in matrimony. That is something only a religious institution can do. Separation of Church and State is a phrase that is often invoked by politicians in an attempt to push religion out of the public sphere. But here is a place where the power falls clearly on the Church’s side of the scale. The State needs to butt out of an affair that is not under its authority. Marriage is a religious creation, and to religion it belongs exclusively.
If marriage is a religious institution, then religious institutions should define it. Congress, the President and his famous (or infamous) pen, and the Supreme Court have no power over it. They cannot declare homosexual marriage legal. They cannot redefine the institution at all. It’s not theirs. If some complain because they are not religious and are not attached to a religious institution, then I reply, why marry at all? Vows are made to God. If you don’t believe in God there is no need to go through the motions. Some may say, “But I want to marry! It’s a cultural institution of which I am fond!” There are plenty of religious institutions that will perform ceremonies for non-religious people. The Unitarian Church, for example, would provide such services. Most evangelical pastors will even marry two non-religious people. Evangelicals generally draw the line at marrying a religious person to a non-religious person. Some may say, “But I’m gay, what about me?” The Presbyterian Church USA and the Episcopal Church would both provide marriage services for gay couples. There are others as well. Frankly, there have been churches willing to do this for a long time. The claim of bigotry aimed at the Church by politicians is a straw man erected to bring another aspect of private life under the control of the American State. Separation of Church and State is a sword with two-edges. One edge is meant to protect the population from having their public lives controlled by the clergy, the other edge is meant to protect their private lives from control by politicians. In either case the sword is there to promote liberty.
This is a theological debate that should be had by various denominations and religions. If there are variant positions through out the nation on what is right and good, those various positions are held by private people and private institutions. The range of influence and power is limited to either individuals or a group of individuals who have voluntarily attached themselves to an institution, like a church or a club. This is the same situation that has always existed. That is the definition of a plural society. If we allow the State to impose a one size fits all belief upon us all, then that belief will almost certainly be the wrong one. Governments are rarely right for long about anything. In a democratic republic like ours in America, power swings back and forth between two parties. A small majority can sometimes impose its will on a large minority, depending on how power is divided. But like all large stable governments in history, policies are very difficult to undo once enacted. Currently the Affordable Care Act is very unpopular, yet, it is difficult to imagine that it will actually ever be over turned. Allowing private religious institutions to be the arbiters of cultural disagreements about morality and religious practice is a much better option. If you don’t like your church or religion in America, you can leave it or change it. Yes, there may be personal sacrifices made on your behalf, but you won’t be killed or jailed. Let the State begin to make these decisions for us, and you will see laws made and crimes invented.
This is precisely what makes parts of the Middle East so unstable. There is no separation of Mosque and State. There is no place in certain types of Islam for a private life with moral disagreement. Therefore, if you are not part of whatever type of Islam that is in power or thinks it should be in power, then you have no right to life at all, and you become subject to imprisonment and execution. Each side of the disagreement rises to power from time to time and punishes the other for recent and/or ancient injustices. There can be no peaceful plural society where this mentality exists.
This is precisely where we are headed. We are reaching a point where there is no place for moral disagreement. The two parties each take the reigns of power from time to time, and the party in the majority then punishes those that they defeated in the last election. This way of thinking is what has poisoned our political discourse. Instead of seeing people that differ in moral judgment, we see enemies to be vanquished. Thus we fight culture wars, drug wars, wars on poverty, wars on women, wars on the Tea Party, wars on terrorism etc. We use the language of violence to describe the way we feel about people and practices. Instead of letting these things be mediated and solved by private individuals and private institutions at the local level, we turn to the monopoly of violence that the State possesses, to try and force each other to live and believe as the other would have it. This is our current cultural moray. If we are to recover from it as a people, we must allow the Separation of Church and State to be the protector of liberty that it has been since the dawn of the Reformation. Just as we would not want the Church punishing crime, I submit, we do not want the State defining marriage. Marriage does not belong to politicians and judges, but to priests and pastors. We in America need to return to our private lives and institutions, learning to express our opinions in them, and stop letting politicians divide us with promises of future punishment on those with whom we differ. If we do not I fear one day the balance of power will shift too far, and too much will be forced upon one side. That is how democratic nations generally move from the ballot box to the cartridge box. War is a destroyer of Life, liberty, and property. It is also the province of the State.
AND THIS IS WHY MARRIAGE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE 10TH AMENDMENT. The 10thers, who say it belongs to the state because it is not in the jurisdiction of the feds, are wrong. They leave out the covenant with God, the holy part that is the marriage vow.
Originally Published July 4th, 2011 at http://rayharvey.org/
On this day in 1776, America’s thirteen colonies broke away from Britain to forge a new nation free to govern itself. The guiding principle behind this new nation is stated very clearly in America’s foundational document — the Declaration of Independence — which says that all human beings by nature possess the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that governments are instituted among humans to protect these rights.
I emphasize the word protect in this context because it was (and in many ways still is) a revolutionary idea: for in most lands, including America today, government is looked upon not as a protector but as a ruler of the people; a sovereign. But this was not America’s original intent.
The word unalienable means “that which cannot be transferred, revoked, or made alien” — and everything that has made America great is merely an elaboration upon this fundamental principle.
The Declaration of Independence is not a treatise on political theory but a statement to the world of what the founders of America believed to be a self-evident truth: namely, that we each own ourselves and our property in full.
The language used in the Declaration of Independence owes much to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, which states that the major function of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of each person.
The framers of the Constitution indeed believed the legitimate functions of government to be merely protective, and not paternal. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The legitimate functions of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”
In fact, politically speaking, those two things are at root the only possible alternatives: protective government or paternal government. (Even anarchy devolves eventually into a de facto government of one or the other of these two.)
America is for this reason a nation of laws: laws which specifically protect “against the instigation of aggression,” for it is ultimately only through aggression, or its threat, that the right to life and property can be infringed or abrogated.
The right to life, which is the fundamental right, is what makes America politically free.
The right to property, which is the only manifestation of the right to life, is what makes America economically capitalistic.
Capitalism is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness applied to economics.
Capitalism is the freedom to produce and to trade property.
It is of inestimable significance that of the many grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, a number of those grievances are economic.
Money is property, and private property is the crux of freedom.
Property is subsumed under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: obviously, you cannot possess the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if you do not first possess the right to produce, keep, and dispose of those things which maintain your life and make you happy.
In this sense, America is correctly known as a country of negative rights.
What that term refers to is the fact that your freedom imposes no burdens and no responsibilities upon any other person except responsibilities of a negative type: you must refrain from violating the same rights in others.
Your rights, my rights, everyone’s rights stop where another’s begin.
Rights are in this way compossible – which means: they can’t conflict since everyone possesses the exact same rights: specifically, the right to one’s own life and property – and only one’s own life and property.
Negative rights are the only possible way for each and every individual, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, color, class, or creed, to live freely.
Negative rights do not guarantee a set income. They do not guarantee healthcare. They do not guarantee a level playing field or a level training field. They do not even guarantee success or happiness.
They guarantee only that you are free to pursue success and happiness, and that if you achieve these things, they are yours unalienably. Which is to say, these things cannot be revoked or transferred.
That is the premise America was founded upon.
In other words, negative rights guarantee you the one thing most important to human life: the freedom to pursue your values. In America as she was originally intended, you are free to make of yourself whatever you can, provided you do not infringe upon the same rights in others.
The long war upon the principle of negative rights, which began before the ink was finished drying on the Declaration of Independence, is waged almost exclusively by those who, in one form or another, seek to replace negative rights with so-called positive rights.
Positive rights do not actually exist.
In fact, they’re a complete negation of rights and a contradiction in terms, since by definition positive rights are not compossible – which is to say that in order to be carried out, positive rights require the infringement of the rights of others. So that if, for example, whether or not you work, you possess (which in reality you do not) the positive right to a certain fixed income, it will necessarily require that someone (i.e. the government) takes money from someone else and gives that money to you, in order to provide you with your fixed income. The most obvious problem with this is that no one has the right to take money from any other person; for if someone did possess such a right, from whom would it derive?
Money and all other property may be lawfully taken only by permission.
Permissions are not rights.
Such is the nature of positive rights, whose fatal flaw is built into the very idea of positive rights.
This 4th of July, then, let us celebrate the principle that birthed the greatest civilization in world history: the principle of negative rights.
July 4, 2015
Genesis 9:1-29 (Good News Translation)
God’s Faithful Word
Genesis 9:1-29: God blesses Noah and his family and makes a covenant never to destroy all living beings. A sign of this everlasting covenant is the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds.
Today’s Scripture: Genesis 9:16
[God said] “When the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between me and all living beings on earth.”
God's Covenant with Noah
1 God blessed Noah and his sons and said, “Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth.2All the animals, birds, and fish will live in fear of you. They are all placed under your power.3Now you can eat them, as well as green plants; I give them all to you for food.4 The one thing you must not eat is meat with blood still in it; I forbid this because the life is in the blood.5If anyone takes human life, he will be punished. I will punish with death any animal that takes a human life.6 Human beings were made like God, so whoever murders one of them will be killed by someone else.
7 “You must have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth.”
8God said to Noah and his sons,9“I am now making my covenant with you and with your descendants,10and with all living beings—all birds and all animals—everything that came out of the boat with you.11With these words I make my covenant with you: I promise that never again will all living beings be destroyed by a flood; never again will a flood destroy the earth.12As a sign of this everlasting covenant which I am making with you and with all living beings,13I am putting my bow in the clouds. It will be the sign of my covenant with the world.14Whenever I cover the sky with clouds and the rainbow appears,15I will remember my promise to you and to all the animals that a flood will never again destroy all living beings.16When the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between me and all living beings on earth.17That is the sign of the promise which I am making to all living beings.”
Noah and His Sons
18The sons of Noah who went out of the boat were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)19These three sons of Noah were the ancestors of all the people on earth.
20Noah, who was a farmer, was the first man to plant a vineyard.21After he drank some of the wine, he became drunk, took off his clothes, and lay naked in his tent.22When Ham, the father of Canaan, saw that his father was naked, he went out and told his two brothers.23Then Shem and Japheth took a robe and held it behind them on their shoulders. They walked backward into the tent and covered their father, keeping their faces turned away so as not to see him naked.24When Noah sobered up and learned what his youngest son had done to him,25he said,
“A curse on Canaan!
He will be a slave to his brothers.
26Give praise to the Lord, the God of Shem!
Canaan will be the slave of Shem.
27May God cause Japheth to increase!
May his descendants live with the people of Shem!
Canaan will be the slave of Japheth.”
28After the flood Noah lived 350 years29and died at the age of 950.
The covenant God makes is initiated by God and is eternal. It is made with Noah and all living beings. God says that the “bow in the clouds” will be the sign of his covenant with the world. What are your thoughts whenever you see a rainbow?
Sovereign God, your love is eternal and I trust in your promises. Open my eyes to signs of your love and grace around me this day. Amen.
Those rebuilding after storm and flood damage
Genesis 10:1-32: A listing of the descendants of Noah’s sons.
If the prayer-warrior prays for the universal, without first
having dealt with personal and local needs, the enemy
will touch these smaller spheres, and thus by the force
of personal and local attack, draw the believer down
from the universal outlook. The order of prayer is
therefore, first exhaustive prayer for all personal and
local spheres, praying through these out to the wider
range of the universal. Prayer
not only exhaustive, but
persistent. The believer needs for all this (1) strength
to pray, (2) vision to pray, (3) knowledge of what to
pray; for there is a sequence in prayer which needs
to be understood intelligently, and a work of prayer,
demanding as much training and equipment as is
needed for preaching.
The trained prayer-warrior knows something of all the
various aspects of prayer, such as: The prayer of asking
(John 14: 13); the prayer of interceding (Rom. 8:26);
"saying" (Matt. 21: 21; Mark 11: 23-25) and burden
prayer, which may be a burden in the spirit or on the
mind (Col. 2: 1; 4: 12). He knows that burdens of prayer
may be conscious, but that he must not expect a
conscious burden for every prayer, nor wait till he "feels
moved to pray." He knows that to see a need for prayer
is sufficient call for prayer, and if he waits for "feeling"
that he can pray when he has vision to pray it is sin.
He understands, too, in the sphere of the universal, the
oneness of the whole Body of Christ, and that in that
sphere of union, he can say "Amen" to the prayers of
the whole Church, so far as they are of the Holy Spirit,
in the will of God.
All this but touches the fringe of the war by prayer
which could be waged upon the forces of darkness, for
the deliverance of God's people, which is the true
objective of Revival.
War on the Saints by Jessie Penn-Lewis
Tomorrow: CHAPTER 12. Revival Dawn and the Baptism of the Spirit.
We do have something to celebrate today.
Ding Dong, the Ex-Im Bank Is Dead!
It seems like the liberty movement has taken a bit of a beating lately, with the Supreme Court defending ObamaCare subsidies, the FCC expanding its regulation of the internet, and budgets continuing to spend beyond our means and rack up more national debt. But it’s not all bad news, and at times like this it’s more important than ever to celebrate victories where we can find them. The end of the United States Export-Import Bank is one such victory.
At midnight tonight, the Bank’s charter will expire for the first time since its creation 80 years ago. This means it won’t be issuing taxpayer-backed loans to big companies with political clout. It won’t be granting special favors to green energy companies to satisfy the president’s personal preferences. It won’t be handing out your money to foreign and corrupt corporations. The expiration of Ex-Im is a blow against the cronyism and corporate favoritism that gives “pro-business” Republicans a bad name, and that’s something we should celebrate.
Sure, the Bank is a relatively small example of a larger, systemic problem with the relationship between government and business. With an estimated cost of $2 billion over ten years, there are certainly bigger fish to fry in the war against cronyism. It’s also true that Congress will very likely reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank sooner or later. But we should underestimate the impact of finally putting the brakes on a program that has overstayed its welcome by nearly a century.
Stopping the Ex-Im Bank was only possible because ordinary people stood up and refused to take it anymore. The lobbying pressures, not only from the direct beneficiaries of the Bank like Boeing and General Electric, but also from big-money powerhouses like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was enormous. Overcoming that kind of inertia is no mean feat, and anyone who took the time to call or email their congressman should be proud of the role they played in helping David defeat Goliath.
The Ex-Im Bank will expire, and the world will not end. Boeing’s planes will not fall from the sky, and General Electric will not close its doors. We are teaching the world a lesson that government handouts are not the way to prosperity, and that cutting useless programs will not mean an end to our way of life. In a time when the policies of reckless government spending and economic intervention have plunged Greece into financial chaos, it’s a lesson the world very much needs.
Yes, the Bank will probably be reauthorized, but the next time we have this fight, our position will be all the stronger. We’ve removed a critical arrow from the quiver of the crony capitalists: No longer will they be able to claim that the Export-Import Bank is the only thing keeping the small business economy alive. That claim will have been exposed for the lie it is, and next time, ending the Bank for good will be that much easier.
So take a minute to forget about the heresies of the Supreme Court and enjoy this small victory. You’ve earned it.
YET MORE REASONS TO CELEBRATE THE EX-IM BANK'S DEMISE
Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. The new documents were forced from the U.S.
Judicial Watch today released new State Department documents showing that Hillary Clinton and the State Department’s response to the Benghazi attack was immediately determined by top Obama White House officials, particularly Ben Rhodes, then-White House deputy strategic communications adviser, and Bernadette Meehan, a spokesperson for the National Security Council. The new documents were forced from the U.S. State Department under court order in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01511)).
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request on June 13, 2014, and subsequently a lawsuit on September 4, 2014, seeking:
Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to notes, updates, or reports created in response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. This request includes, but is not limited to, notes taken by then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton or employees of the Office of the Secretary of State during the attack and its immediate aftermath.
Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America [Learn More]
A September 11, 2012, email sent at 6:21 p.m. by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland to Meehan, Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, and Clinton’s personal aide Jacob Sullivan shows that the State Department deferred to the White House on the official response to the Benghazi attack. Referencing pending press statements by Barack Obama and Clinton, Nuland wrote: “We are holding for Rhodes clearance. BMM, pls advise asap.”
Meehan responded three minutes later, at 6:24 p.m.: “Ben is good with these and is on with Jake now too.”
Rhodes sent an email at 9:48 p.m. to senior White House and State officials on the issue: “We should let the State Department statement be our comment for the night.”
An email from Meehan, sent at 10:15 p.m. on September 11 to Rhodes, Nuland, Sullivan, Kennedy and Clinton aide Philippe Reines, further confirms the White House approval of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the Benghazi terrorist attack to an Internet video: “All, the Department of State just released the following statement. Per Ben [Rhodes’] email below, this should be the USG comment for the night.”
The “USG comment” turned out to be Clinton’s notorious public statement, made hours after the initial terrorist attack, falsely suggesting that the Benghazi assault was a “response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
Rhodes emailed Meehan, Sullivan and Reines at 11:45 p.m. on September 11, writing, “Fyi – we are considering releasing this tonight.” The next line is redacted. The email also included a “Readout of President’s Call to Secretary Clinton,” the contents of which are also completely redacted.
On September 12, the day after the attack, Meehan sent an email to Obama administration officials announcing that “to ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15AM ET today.”
The new documents show that the Obama administration engaged domestic and foreign Islamist groups and foreign nationals to push the Internet video narrative. The day after the attack, Rashad Hussain, the Obama administration’s special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), sent an email to Ambassador Ufuk Gokcen, the OIC’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Cenk Uraz, an official with the OIC, pushing the video as the cause of the Benghazi attack. The email has the subject line: “Urgent: Anti-Islamic Film and Violence” and reads in part:
I am sure you are considering putting a statement on the film and the related violence. In addition to the condemnation of the disgusting depictions, it will be important to emphasize the need to respond in a way that is consistent with Islamic principles, i.e. not engaging in violence and taking innocent life …
SPECIAL: We must stop America’s Fraud President NOW! Force the hand of Congress to oust him. Pull out all the stops. Give it everything you’ve got. Send an IMPEACH OBAMA fax, an IMPEACH OBAMA petition, and a PINK SLIP WARNING to every member of Congress—all 535 members of the House and Senate—for a donation of just $50 or more.
The resulting OIC statement, sent to Hussain by the OIC’s Uraz, linked the film, as requested by the Obama administration, to the Benghazi attack and suggested that the United States restrict free speech in response. The official OIC statement called the film “incitement” and stated that the attack in Benghazi and a demonstration in Cairo “emanated from emotions aroused by a production of a film had hurt [sic] the religious sentiments of Muslims. The two incidents demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression.” The OIC’s statement referenced its own efforts to criminalizecriticism of Islam. Hussain sent the OIC statement immediately to other Obama administration officials, including then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who thanks Hussain for the email.
The State Department withheld communications on September 12, 2012, between Hillary Clinton’s senior aide Huma Abedin and Rashad Hussain about an article passed by him about how “American Muslim leaders” were tying the video to the Benghazi attack. At the time of the Benghazi attack, Abedin had been double-dipping, working as a consultant to outside clients while continuing as a top adviser at State. Abedin’s outside clients included Teneo, a strategic consulting firm co-founded by former Bill Clinton counselor Doug Band. According to Fox News, Abedin earned $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, in addition to her $135,000 “special government employee” compensation.
The State Department also disclosed a document, dated September 13, 2012, entitled “USG Outreach and Engagement Post Benghazi Attack.” This record details how the Obama administration reached out to domestic groups, foreign groups and governments in a full-court press to tie the video to the Benghazi attack. The document “captures USG efforts to engage outside voices to encourage public statements that denounce the attack make it clear that the anti-Muslim film does not reflect American [sic].” The document highlights the use of Hillary Clinton’s statement tying the terrorist attack to an Internet video. The “outreach” document also highlights “Special Envoy’s engagement” with the OIC and the “Saudi Ambassador.”
The documents show that the Internet video was raised in a September 15 discussion between Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. The “eyes only” “secret” document was partially declassified. Davutoglu “called the controversial anti-Islam video a ‘clear provocation,’ but added that wise people should not be provoked by it.” The next line is blacked out and the markings show that it will not be declassified until 2027, more than 12 years from now.
Another email, evidently from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sent to Meehan and other top White House and administration officials, shows that the administration took no action to deploy military assets almost five hours after the attack begun:
OSD has received queries asking if military assets are being sent to either location [Libya and Egypt]. Have responded “not to our knowledge.”
The State Department referred Judicial Watch to documents in the batch of 55,000 emails allegedly turned over by Hillary Clinton and searched in response to the court order in this lawsuit. These emails were published on the State Department’s web site, but are also available here. In addition, the State Department produced new documents containing Hillary Clinton emails. In one such email (September 11, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.) from Clinton to Nuland, Sullivan and top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, with the subject line “Chris Smith,” Clinton writes: “Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?”
Nuland responds: “We need to ck family’s druthers. If they are OK, we should put something out from you tonight.” Mills then replies to Nuland, “Taking S [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] off.” (Sean Smith, not “Chris Smith” was one of four Americans killed at Benghazi.)
On September 13, 2012, Politico’s Mike Allen sent then-National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor an Independent.co.uk news article entitled “America was warned of embassy attack but did nothing.” The story reported that “senior officials are increasingly convinced” the Benghazi attack was “not the result of spontaneous anger.” Vietor forwarded the story to other top White House and State Department officials, but Vietor’s accompanying comments and the comments of other top Obama appointees are completely redacted. The administration also redacted several emails of top State officials discussing a statement by a Romney campaign spokesman criticizing the “security situation in Libya.”
In April 2014, Judicial Watch first obtained smoking-gun documents showing that it was the Obama White House’s public relations effort that falsely portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.”
The documents include an email by White House operative Ben Rhodes sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” This “prep” was for Ambassador Susan Rice in advance of her appearances on Sunday news shows to discuss the Benghazi attack and deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to the video.
The email listed as one of the administration’s key talking points:
“Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
Documents released by Judicial Watch last month further confirm that the Obama administration, including Hillary Clinton, Rice and Obama immediately knew the attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack.
“These documents show the Obama White House was behind the big lie, first promoted by Hillary Clinton, that an Internet video caused the Benghazi terrorist attack,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, “Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials pushed others to tie the Internet video to the attacks. It is disturbing that the Obama administration would use Islamist radicals to push the false Benghazi story in a way that would abridge free speech. It is little wonder that Mrs. Clinton and the entire Obama administration have fought so hard to keep these documents from the American people. All evidence now points to Hillary Clinton, with the approval of the White House, as being the source of the Internet video lie.”
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/bombshell-newly-... - =
King James Bible
The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;
Song of Solomon 2:12
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
2:8-13 The church pleases herself with thoughts of further communion with Christ. None besides can speak to the heart. She sees him come. This may be applied to the prospect the Old Testament saints had of Christ's coming in the flesh. He comes as pleased with his own undertaking. He comes speedily. Even when Christ seems to forsake, it is but for a moment; he will soon return with everlasting loving-kindness. The saints of old saw him, appearing through the sacrifices and ceremonial institutions. We see him through a glass darkly, as he manifests himself through the lattices. Christ invites the new convert to arise from sloth and despondency, and to leave sin and worldly vanities, for union and communion with him. The winter may mean years passed in ignorance and sin, unfruitful and miserable, or storms and tempests that accompanied his conviction of guilt and danger. Even the unripe fruits of holiness are pleasant unto Him whose grace has produced them. All these encouraging tokens and evidences of Divine favour, are motives to the soul to follow Christ more fully. Arise then, and come away from the world and the flesh, come into fellowship with Christ. This blessed change is owing wholly to the approaches and influences of the Sun of righteousness.
Your support keeps freedom alive!